Yes, and this is a genuinely important protective question for anyone who has purchased property only to discover a decree for specific performance exists in favour of an earlier buyer, since Indian law does provide certain limited avenues for a third-party purchaser to challenge or resist enforcement of such a decree, though success depends heavily on the specific facts, particularly the timing of the purchase and whether the buyer had notice of the earlier agreement.

Under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a decree for specific performance can be enforced against any person claiming under the defendant by a title arising subsequent to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid their money in good faith and without notice of the original contract. This provision creates a crucial protective category — a bona fide purchaser who genuinely had no knowledge of the earlier agreement to sell, and who paid full and fair consideration for the property, has real grounds to resist enforcement of a specific performance decree against them, since the law protects innocent third parties who transacted without any means of knowing about the prior competing claim.

The critical factual question in every such challenge is whether the subsequent purchaser had actual or constructive notice of the earlier agreement to sell at the time of their own purchase — if the earlier agreement to sell was registered, or if a suit for specific performance was already filed and pending (thereby attracting the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882), the subsequent purchaser is generally deemed to have constructive notice regardless of their actual knowledge, and in such cases, the protection under Section 19 does not apply, and the decree can be enforced against them despite their subsequent purchase.

Where the subsequent purchaser genuinely had no way of discovering the earlier unregistered agreement through reasonable due diligence, and the suit for specific performance was filed only after their purchase was completed, they have a considerably stronger case to argue they qualify as a bona fide purchaser without notice, entitled to protection under Section 19, and courts examine factors such as whether proper title searches were conducted, whether the purchase price paid was consistent with genuine market value, and the overall circumstances surrounding the transaction to assess the purchaser's good faith.

Given how much these challenges depend on establishing genuine lack of notice and good faith purchase, gathering strong evidence of your due diligence at the time of purchase is essential to any successful challenge. Our legal experts at Aapka Legal Advice assess whether a subsequent purchaser genuinely qualifies for protection against an earlier specific performance decree. The Top Property Lawyers in Mumbai team has successfully defended bona fide third-party purchasers against specific performance decrees before Mumbai's civil courts, supported by a panel of retired judges and criminal lawyers where fraud in the underlying transaction is suspected. If you're facing enforcement of a specific performance decree against your Mumbai property purchase, establishing your status as a genuine bona fide purchaser without notice is the critical foundation of your defence.